MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016701923 · doi:10.1177/1087054712443157

Duloxetine in Adults With ADHD

2012· article· en· W2016701923 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Bilodeau, Tarek Simon, Miriam H. Beauchamp, Paul Lespérance, Simon Dubreucq, Jean-Pierre Dorée, Smadar Valérie Tourjman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité LavalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuloxetineHamilton Anxiety Rating ScaleClinical Global ImpressionRating scalePsychologyPlaceboAnxietyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of duloxetine on ADHD in adults. METHOD: In a 6-week double-blind trial, 30 adults with ADHD received placebo or duloxetine 60 mg daily. The Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) and the Clinical Global Impression Scales (CGI) were used to assess symptom severity and clinical improvement. The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) were used to measure the effect on anxiety and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: The Duloxetine group showed lower score on CGI-Severity at Week 6 (3.00 vs. 4.07 for placebo, p < .001), greater improvement on CGI-Improvement (2.89 vs. 4.00 at Week 6, p < .001), and greater decreases on five of eight subscales of the CAARS. There was no treatment group effect on HDRS or HARS scores. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine may be a therapeutic option for adults with ADHD, but further studies are required to replicate these findings in larger samples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207